The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. No prejudice against merging, if anyone wants to pursue that avenue. Mojo Hand(
talk) 13:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Having said that if anyone thinks it is worth their time merging into
Methanol fuel,
Hydrogen economy or any other article they could argue for that as an alternative to deletion
Chidgk1 (
talk) 13:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. I agree that this needs a lot of work. But a Google Scholar search for "methanol economy" is
pretty productive. It doesn't really matter whether this is a concept that is ever put into widespread practice; it's still a notable idea that has been widely discussed in peer-reviewed (and other) literature.
Lubal (
talk) 13:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. I was really surprised to see this nomination. Even if it's true that the methanol-based economy will be driven out by electrification, how is that relevant? It doesn't alter the fact that this a topic worthy of an article.
Athel cb (
talk) 16:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
There never was a “methanol-based economy”. I think that any info here worthy of being in an article could just as well be part of the
Methanol fuel article
Chidgk1 (
talk) 16:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge or keep. I don't agree with the deletion rationale. But the term is a buzzword, and the non-
WP:SYNTH content would be better in
Methanol fuel.
Walsh90210 (
talk) 22:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. No prejudice against merging, if anyone wants to pursue that avenue. Mojo Hand(
talk) 13:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Having said that if anyone thinks it is worth their time merging into
Methanol fuel,
Hydrogen economy or any other article they could argue for that as an alternative to deletion
Chidgk1 (
talk) 13:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. I agree that this needs a lot of work. But a Google Scholar search for "methanol economy" is
pretty productive. It doesn't really matter whether this is a concept that is ever put into widespread practice; it's still a notable idea that has been widely discussed in peer-reviewed (and other) literature.
Lubal (
talk) 13:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. I was really surprised to see this nomination. Even if it's true that the methanol-based economy will be driven out by electrification, how is that relevant? It doesn't alter the fact that this a topic worthy of an article.
Athel cb (
talk) 16:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
There never was a “methanol-based economy”. I think that any info here worthy of being in an article could just as well be part of the
Methanol fuel article
Chidgk1 (
talk) 16:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge or keep. I don't agree with the deletion rationale. But the term is a buzzword, and the non-
WP:SYNTH content would be better in
Methanol fuel.
Walsh90210 (
talk) 22:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.